Camera ‘scanning’ for 6x6

I’ve recently begun shooting 6x6, but I’ve quickly become aware of how much I have been depending on scanning my 35mm film to guide my darkroom work. Specifically, scanning let’s me pick the negs I want to work in the darkroom and approximate the contrast and tonality I’m looking for. Also! scanning is nice for sharing with family & friends.

 

I don’t have a 120 capable film scanner, and I’m dismayed by how much they’ve selling for.

 

My question is: what would I need to ‘scan’ 6x6 with my digital (EOS M5)?

 

From what I’ve read:

 

1. Suitable macro lens. I’ve never shot macro, so which one?

2. Light: either a lightbox or speedlight

3. tripod - I’m good there

4. some sort of film holder

5. bellows? Extension tubes? I’m lost at this point

 

Any advice?

1. Whatever you can afford, use otherwise(!) (according to it's focal length) and mount. - Preferably get the longer one of two candidates, to have (slightly) less hassle centering your camera over your slide. adapting the 100/2.8 L IS might be a dream (or way too heavy for an EOS M?) The native 28/3.5 would be a tad too wide for my taste. If you have an EF-M to EF adapter maybe ponder any odd 3rd party (AF!) macro lens. Tokina 100mm might be decent. No clue about 50mms.
   
2. I'd prefer a speed light + extension sync chord, to eleminate tripod or camera shake for sure and keep color temperature constant but YMMV.
   
3. Really? - Do you have some focusing slider for cropping precisely into your slides?
   
4. If you are semi handy: Take your enlarger's preferably glass less and cobble it into some contraption in front of your light source.
   
5. If you want to sue a heritage lens adapted a bellows might be nice.
   
6. extension tubes tend to become a PITA & ship in the wrong length, in case you are planning to use them behind an ordinary lens (with less focusing way than macro lenses.) But: If you are after a quick cheap dirty solution with moderate needs resolution wise they might be right for you, since they tend to be the cheapoest solution. (I have no clue how the EOS Ms focus manually behind adapted glass,
   

I have no idea what an Epson V600 scanner runs in your neighborhood, but all of Jochens ideas make the current $200 ($US) in Wa. state seem like a reasonable sum. Bill

+1 on getting something like the Epson V600, esp if your primary goals are making digital proof sheets for wet darkroom selection, and web sharing. "Camera Scanning" can be quicker and easier in some respects, harder in others.

 

Cons: camera can't batch scan an entire roll of 120 at once, transparencies lend themselves to easier camera scanning than negatives.

 

Pros: Depending on the lens, film holder and workflow, camera scanning is capable of much higher resolution and color/tonal quality, esp if you have the patience to stitch multiple shots of smaller segments of the frame.

additional Con: camera uses Bayer, scanner doesn`t ^^

This subject has been pretty much beaten to death in other fora. Suggest you do a search on 'digital camera scanning' or 'copying'.

 

I recommend using a speedlight rather than a lightbox. My method is to use a camera-mounted flash and reflect it back into the film-holder off a large white card. With the filmholder firmly attached at a set distance from the copy lens.

 

Unfortunately, there's almost nothing ready-made for copying anything other than 35mm slides/filmstrips onto a DSLR or MILC. Even the Honeywell Repronar or Bowens Illumitran setups don't have sufficient bellows adjustment for easy 120 copying. Beside which, the Illumitran needs extensive modification to lower its flash output to a useable level (it was designed for low ISO copy film) and bring its electrical safety to a modern standard.

 

Here's a picture of my Illumitran, which has turned into more of a project than I bargained for.

I now have it at the stage where it's fully useable for 35mm film copying, but it needs an extension to the bellows column in order to copy 120 film.

 

"additional Con: camera uses Bayer, scanner doesn`t ^^"

 

-Totally irrelevant IMO. I can see absolutely no difference, at the grain level, between scans from a dedicated filmscanner, and digital copies from a DSLR.

 

Here are two side-by-side 100% crops of a colour negative 'scan'. One from a 24Mp digital camera and the other from a 3600 ppi dedicated 35mm scanner. I'm not even going to reveal which is which.

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

If you have to buy the macro and the lightbox, a scanner isn't going to be much more money but less problematic IMO. A low budget approach would be a V700 run on an old hardware platform like windows XP and using the native Epson Scan software. You'll need a film holder for each format of film you want to scan but these are very available and not expensive if the scanner doesn't include them.

I will have to take a photo of my setup and post it. I bought a Saunders LPL 6600 for $25, a Canon FD 50/3.5 macro for $60, a full set of Canon FD extension tubes for $25, a Canon FD to EOS adapter with no glass, two 5600k fluorescent tubes for my light table, a 4x5 enlarger film holder, a 6x6 enlarger film holder, and a 35mm film holder. So for under $200 I created a duplicating station to use with my Canon 5D II. I made the 35mm slide holder out of black matte board and I made a two axis sliding holder for each film size out of black matte board and some left over bits of black wooden picture frame moulding. The two axis slider allows me to easily align each film size for 1:1 stitching of 6x6 and 4x5 images without moving the camera. For 35mm I go even closer and shoot three images and stitch them. I removed the enlarger head from the sliding holder and jerry-rigged some old tripod parts to allow me to mount the camera lens parallel to the base of the enlarger and then place my light table and film holding jig on the base. The LPL has a super smooth and efficient height adjustment which makes placing the lens extremely easy. I keep the film well above the light table to make sure the translucent panel is not in focus.

 

 

Results are superb. I made lightjet prints of 16x20 of the 4x5 and 11x14 from the 35mm to confirm that the copies would stand up to larger printing. I see now that I could easily print much larger for all formats and likely get to 28x35 for 4x5 no problem. That is pretty much my limit for doing my own mounting and framing anyway.

 

 

I am astonished that Velvia 50 in any of these formats copied using the 5D II, have far superior depth of colour than the same image taken with the 5D II itself. I cannot fathom how this works. The camera can render the colours from the film but not from the real scene!

 

 

I no longer have 6x6 or 4x5 but this experience has me hoping that within a year I will be able to build a very specialized 6x6 camera to shoot Velvia again!

 

 

I have recently upgraded to a 5DS R so I am going to try reducing my macro ratio to reduce the amount of stitching required. Hopefully get by with 1:1 on 35mm, do the 6x6 with 2 or 3 images instead of 6, and redo the 4x5 images with 6 frames instead of 18!

 

 

I found the 4x5 very difficult to stitch 18 images due to light falloff created by my light table. I will try it with the new camera/system and see what happens. I may have to get a Logan light pad or try using my flash as a light source. I will try the flash first since many photographers use this method.

 

 

Converting colour negative film through this process and using Photoshop is not easy. Some scenes convert relatively easy and others take hours of painstaking work and experimentation. When I start shooting 6x6 again I will not shoot any colour negatives. I have not tried B&W, but I am confident that this would be much easier.

 

 

So you could use this method to actually make digital prints or simply avoid the stitching method to create very good resolution images for your evaluation and sharing via the internet.

 

 

I don't recall which 6x6 you ended up selecting. Refresh my memory if you get a chance.

I use a Novoflex Castel XQ focusing rail with a slide copying attachment, as illustrated in the following link. I use a daylight LED replacement bulb* for a source, and adjust the WB of the camera to match. Since the assembly is completely rigid, a tripod is not needed and long exposure times (typically 1/4 s @ ISO 400 and f/5.6) are not a problem.

 

novoflex slide | B&H Photo Video

 

You need a macro lens which will focus to 1:1 magnification for 35 mm, or 1:2 for 120 film. A bellows attachment is not needed, but many manual macro lens will need an extension tube to reach 1:1. The Novoflex rig has enough length to accommodate a 90 mm lens at 1:1. For most applications, I use a Nikon 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor with a PX-13 (26 mm) automatic extension tube. Ordinary lenses are not sharp enough nor have a flat-field at macro distance, even with a bellows or extension tubes.

 

For negative to positive conversion, I use SilverFast HDR, which is the back end of their scanning software. The process is as simple and accurate as if using a dedicated scanner. You get the best results if you crop the image to remove any "clear" borders.

 

* Screw-in LED bulbs have a smooth spectrum. They work using a phosphor, excited by a near-UV LED. The decay time of the phosphor is long enough to eliminate any flicker. Even if flicker were present, 1/4 second will integrate any line frequency fluctuations.

I went with a Bronica SQ-A. I had a little trouble with it at first (film not advancing), but I was able to pick up an extra 120 insert which straightened that out. I've got close to 10 rolls through it, and have been to the darkroom to print twice, so I'm getting up to speed.

 

My 35MM workflow was: shoot, develop at home, scan at home, use scans to select keepers & share with family/friends, print in the darkroom.

 

I knew I wouldn't be able to scan 6x6 to share online, but I hadn't really anticipated how much harder my darkroom work would be without the scans to guide me. I use a community darkroom and can only get in for a few hours per week.

 

Since I've seen camera 'scanning' for 35MM discussed extensively, I thought to tap in to any experience anyone has with a similar setup for 6x6.

 

Would something like this work?

• EOS 50/2.5 macro lens
  
• Tripod with column reversed
  
• 6x6 negative holder from an enlarger
  
• on top of a light table
  

I can picture how I could set that up vertically to achieve flat and parallel. Using a speedlight seems like it would be more complex.

A tripod with a reversed column is somewhat of an urban myth. The legs are always obscuring what you wish to copy, or shadowing the light source. More important, there's no way to look through the viewfinder for accurate focusing. A tilting LCD helps, but not enough, IMO, for critical focusing and alignment. Alignment (e.g., everything parallel) is critical, but problematic with a tripod. Scanning takes a lot of time in organizing, cleaning and alignment. If you have to start from scratch each time, you'll never have enough time to keep up (or catch up with older projects).

 

For best results, the film must be shielded from ambient light. You can use a darkened room, or drape a tent or darkcloth over the assembly.

 

For casual use, including sharing on line, a flatbed scanner is probably the best solution. They are inexpensive, easily available, and require little or no setup. For archival purposes, you need a high resolution camera, lens and rig like shown above.

rodeo_joe really has the camera scanning concept nailed down: I'd be happy with either of his example crops, both of which approximate what I get from 35mm on my dedicated Nikon CS8000 film scanner. The CS8000 gives great results, but is excruciatingly noisy, finicky and s-l-o-w.

 

People have differing expectations and uses for camera scanning. You can go full-on elaborate, in an attempt to equal or exceed what dedicated film scanners produce. Taken to its ultimate extreme, you have the extraordinary Phase One medium format digital repro system: a $50K+ affair using a bespoke large-sensor film back of up to 150mp. Museums rent these to create or update their archives.

 

OTOH, for very casual use you can just slap any random macro lens on the camera, tape a 35mm slide to the end of a paper towel tube, hold it in front of the lens, point it at the sky and snap a quick-n-dirty "scan".

 

Medium format is more difficult (isn't it always, tho). The film is bigger and needs proper flat holding at variable distance from the lens, with better control over illumination. Pulling the parts together to do it right (even casually) is more of a challenge, which kind of eliminates the middle ground one can get away with when camera scanning 35mm. For 6x6, either go whole hog into what rodeo_joe, Ed_Ingold, and John Crowe discussed, or skip it and use a flatbed scanner.

 

If you aren't seriously planning to print from the scans or pixel peep on huge HDTV displays, try a flatbed first. At the moment you seem to prefer optical darkroom printing direct from the camera film: it may not be the best idea to layer the tedium of top-quality camera scanning over that right now. Camera scanning sounds like an immediate, snap the pic and you're done solution- but it isn't. Getting the colors and tones perfect from negative film sources post-camera-scan requires a learning curve, and sometimes pricey convoluted software like SilverFast. Even BW negatives can require more work than anticipated.

 

The nice thing about film is you can always return to it in future to make more high-end scans if desired, when you have the time and inclination to pursue scanning / inkjet printing more than darkroom work. Why not see how deeply invested you become in 6x6 wet printing, before chasing the perfect scan? An Epson v600 is $200 from Amazon, B&H or wherever: if you hate it, it is easily resold on eBay at a loss of maybe $60 (after depreciation and commission fees). Given the costs of photography today, $60 to audition a piece of proofing hardware for as long as you like is dirt cheap.

Edited June 20, 2019 by orsetto

You need the lens which I don't know which is the best. Canon EF-M lenses are very limited and the only macro is 28mm which is too wide for the application. For light source use flash and a sheet of plastic or something to diffuse the light. Use the negative carrier as film holder. If you use diffused enlarger then the upside down enlarger head is a good light source. Set the exposure for the film base.

Sounds like you don't need super high resolution scans for your purposes. A flatbed scanner is going to be cheaper, much less hassle, and faster. I bought a used Epson V500 a few years ago for maybe $50 (US). It came with the necessary holders. Epson regularly updates their software so there is no need to keep some old computer around to use it.

 

I'm on vacation right now but I think the holder will let you scan 3 6X6 frames of 120 in a batch and deliver quick thumbnails.

 

I think there's even older model epsons with holders for 120 film that would be well suited to what you want to do.

 

Scanners like the Epson aren't going to be as good as dedicated film scanners but for just sharing photos with friends and family they are more than good enough. I also have a dedicated film scanner (Nikon Coolscan 8000) and frankly out of the box the scans you get from the scanner and Epson Scan software are often more pleasing than what the Nikon produces with its software on default settings.

 

I've since figured out how to get better scans out of the Nikon but don't sell the Epsons short, - especially for large negatives.

You can buy a certified V550 refurbished directly from Epson for $120. Good for 35mm and 120 film. The V550 is a later model than the V600. I use a V600 and it works very well.

Samples of 120 film: Search: 120 | Flickr

 

Epson V550 refurbished:

Scanners | Clearance Center | Epson US

Epson Perfection V550 Photo Color Scanner - Refurbished | Scanners | Clearance Center | Epson US

You can buy a certified V550 refurbished directly from Epson for $120. Good for 35mm and 120 film. The V550 is a later model than the V600. I use a V600 and it works very well.

Samples of 120 film: Search: 120 | Flickr

 

Epson V550 refurbished:

Scanners | Clearance Center | Epson US

Epson Perfection V550 Photo Color Scanner - Refurbished | Scanners | Clearance Center | Epson US

Their spec sheet does not say the V550 scans 120, but I believe it does. Check with Epson to verify before purchasing.

I may have found my solution - I've got hold of a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 that I'm testing now. It got a little beat up in shipping which is causing me some concerns, but it basically seems to work. Sample:

 

Full frame:

 

 

 

100% crop:

 

 

The seller and I are working out how to deal with the shipping damage, and it's showing some artifacting on the left-hand edge of each frame that I've cropped out, but overall the scans look good.

 

Does anyone have samples from an Epson for comparison?

If the price is right, I'd get it.

Funny, I was just at the exact same vantage point on the High Line last month, and took a grab shot with my cell phone! Yours is a lot more interesting, and I'm tickled the scene reads even better in BW film than color digital (albeit, really crappy digital). The crowds surging by could make shooting something like your Bronica SQ somewhat difficult: was this handheld? How was the shooting experience as you made the trek along the rails? Nailing the composition in that sort of situation is impressive: I'm envious.

 

Re the Polaroid SprintScan 120: this was a very good unit in its day, but like all vintage film scanners was subject to getting knocked out of alignment during shipping. All things being equal, many BW photographers preferred the scan results of the Polaroid to the more popular Nikon CS8000/9000, due to Polaroids use of a softer light source. If you can get it to work properly and reliably, you'll obtain excellent printable scans out of it. The Polaroid-branded software is outdated and may not run well on newer PCs/Macs: if you have problems, look into Ed Hamrick's VueScan. Spare film trays can be hard to come by, but I believe there was crowd-funded project not long ago that resulted in 3D-printed copies.

 

Polaroid did include a nifty dust and scratch removal utility, which can run as either a Photoshop plug-in or standalone applet. Used judiciously, it can make spotting much less of a chore. The Nikon ICE system doesn't work with BW or Kodachrome, so I use this utility with both my CS8000 and my Polaroid SprintScan 4000+ (same as SprintScan 120, but 35mm format only). FWIW, the Polaroid SprintScan was OEM'd by MicroTek and sold by them as the ArtixScan 120tf. The two scanners are nearly identical, so be sure to check both brand names when digging around the web for old user threads, info and scan examples.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by orsetto

@orsetto - thanks for the kind words on the composition! It was handheld with the SQ, loaded with TMX, but it's also one of three shots from slightly different angles, so I hedged my bets. Shooting was a bit tricky - I'm new to the Bronica, and even with a cross-body strap I spent plenty of time standing still and waiting for a break in traffic. There are a few frames where it's obvious that I got jostled while shooting. It was bright-overcast, so I think I was shooting 1/125@F8.

 

Complete agreement on Vuescan - I bought my license in way back in December 2001, and it's probably been my best software purchase ever.

 

I'm leaning towards keeping the Sprintscan - the price is right and the artifacts seem to be confined to one edge, with one notable exception. The seller packed it well - original packaging and padding inside another box with plenty of 'fragile' labels, but UPS handled it roughly enough to shatter the back end of the scanner. Assuming we can come to some accommodation for the damage, I'll take my chances with it.

 

 

It's a shame, because I can see that it was in fine condition before shipping. As it is now, the back panel is largely un-anchored and needs to be supported when connecting a cable. I'll need to cover the holes with tape to keep dust & errant light out.

I have an Epson 4990 that was Epson's top of the line model prior to the V7xx series. It does a great job with medium and large format negatives and slides. I bought mine used 6 years ago for $200. Chances are, they're cheaper now.

 

As for duping with a digital, really all you need is a good macro lens and then some way to backllight your film. I have a lightbox I built that I use for duping medium format images. I built mine out of a wooden wine case that had an open top and closed bottom. I cut the box in half lengthwise and then mounted hinges and latches. Inside you can mount a string of white LEDs, which is the best light source to use these days. To enclose the box, I bought a sheet of translucent white plastic, for the top, cut it to fit, then mounted it with screws to the wood sides. You'll also need either a tripod or a copy stand so you can eliminate camera shake. I like to set my lens to f/8, which puts it into the sweet spot and which aso gives one a bit of depth of field that might help with minor film imperfections.

You did well to find a Sprintscan 120. I have looked from time to time and rarely see them. It should be very good, and easy. You seem to have the software/hardware required to run it so that is a big plus.

You did well to find a Sprintscan 120. I have looked from time to time and rarely see them. It should be very good, and easy. You seem to have the software/hardware required to run it so that is a big plus.

 

It does help that I'm a long-time IT guy :) It's a shame what UPS did to it, but it's mostly working and the seller offered a partial refund to account for the damage.

 

Shipping damage:

 

 

There's more, but that gives the idea. OTOH, the film carriers are intact and now that I've put a few rolls through it, I'm feeling more comfortable that the artifacting I'm seeing is confined to the left hand edge of the neg.

Is it exhibiting artifacts on the left side of the scan bed or on the edge of the 120 neg no matter where it is positioned on the bed ? I am wondering if you were scanning an 8x10 negative, would you see artifacts on the left edge of the neg or would a major portion of the negative be defective?

Is it exhibiting artifacts on the left side of the scan bed or on the edge of the 120 neg no matter where it is positioned on the bed ? I am wondering if you were scanning an 8x10 negative, would you see artifacts on the left edge of the neg or would a major portion of the negative be defective?

 

Sprintscan 120 isn’t a flatbed, it’s a dedicated film scanner. It’s showing a bright-line artifact on the left edge of every scan. I’ll put up a sample later tonight.